Is this direct ancestor or interesting ancestor a la most genealogy investigations? 1000 years is 40 generations ago which accounts for 2,200,000,000 people which contributed to your genetic identity if you ignore pedigree collapse, perhaps 10,000 people if you take pedigree collapse into account. Are they assuming that the people they tested today to get a genetic mapping of a location provide the identity of the people who lived there a thousand years ago? Do people not move around for untold number of reasons? Sounds like they take the people's money and throw a dart at a map.

InterruptingQuirk:Is this direct ancestor or interesting ancestor a la most genealogy investigations? 1000 years is 40 generations ago which accounts for 2,200,000,000 people which contributed to your genetic identity if you ignore pedigree collapse, perhaps 10,000 people if you take pedigree collapse into account. Are they assuming that the people they tested today to get a genetic mapping of a location provide the identity of the people who lived there a thousand years ago? Do people not move around for untold number of reasons? Sounds like they take the people's money and throw a dart at a map.

I think it would have to be Y-chromosome DNA and/or Mitochondrial DNA, which would point to exactly two individuals living 1,000 years ago. (Also your 2,200,000,000 number is a huge overestimation for at least three reasons I can think of off the top of my head, including the number of genes in the human genome and the world population in A.D. 1000, but that's just me being pedantic.)

I think the big problem with this tool has to do with creating the dataset they'd need: They would have to do lots of testing *and* a whole bunch of detective work to nail down every village's DNA heritage in A.D. 1000, wouldn't they?

phaseolus:InterruptingQuirk: Is this direct ancestor or interesting ancestor a la most genealogy investigations? 1000 years is 40 generations ago which accounts for 2,200,000,000 people which contributed to your genetic identity if you ignore pedigree collapse, perhaps 10,000 people if you take pedigree collapse into account. Are they assuming that the people they tested today to get a genetic mapping of a location provide the identity of the people who lived there a thousand years ago? Do people not move around for untold number of reasons? Sounds like they take the people's money and throw a dart at a map.

I think it would have to be Y-chromosome DNA and/or Mitochondrial DNA, which would point to exactly two individuals living 1,000 years ago. (Also your 2,200,000,000 number is a huge overestimation for at least three reasons I can think of off the top of my head, including the number of genes in the human genome and the world population in A.D. 1000, but that's just me being pedantic.)

I think the big problem with this tool has to do with creating the dataset they'd need: They would have to do lots of testing *and* a whole bunch of detective work to nail down every village's DNA heritage in A.D. 1000, wouldn't they?

And how would they possibly get the DNA from any village in A.D. 1000 without uncontaminated sources for the people alive at the time?

Because on an evolutionary scale 1000 years is a blink of an eye, this is especially true for mtDNA which changes slowly. This is how genetic migrations are traced. In other words, the people living there today ARE the uncontaminated sources for people alive 1,000 years ago.

And how would they possibly get the DNA from any village in A.D. 1000 without uncontaminated sources for the people alive at the time?

Because on an evolutionary scale 1000 years is a blink of an eye, this is especially true for mtDNA which changes slowly. This is how genetic migrations are traced. In other words, the people living there today ARE the uncontaminated sources for people alive 1,000 years ago.

Prove that they are the same peoples. There have been how many invasions in England alone since 1000 A.D. One very important invasion happened in 1066 when the Norman's decided to come and take over under William the Conqueror. So the supposed people who lived in England in 1000 A.D. evidence could actually be pointing to the people who came over from Normandy and conquered them in 1066. And so on and so forth through history and all of it's mass migrations and extinctions of peoples including the Black death a few hundred years later which didn't destabilize local populations any, right? There are so many reasons why this is bullshiat.

And how would they possibly get the DNA from any village in A.D. 1000 without uncontaminated sources for the people alive at the time?

Because on an evolutionary scale 1000 years is a blink of an eye, this is especially true for mtDNA which changes slowly. This is how genetic migrations are traced. In other words, the people living there today ARE the uncontaminated sources for people alive 1,000 years ago.

Prove that they are the same peoples.

Silly boy, you miss the entire point. Genealogy is not about producing a scientific analysis but about establishing identity. The 1000 year number is totally arbitrary. Why not 500 or 10,000? As one of the posts above said we are all from Africa. That misses the entire point of genealogy--which is to allow people to listen to ethnic music with a sense of pride because it's "their ancestors".

Thanks for the link, that was the third reason I was thinking of but I didn't know the proper name for it.

InterruptingQuirk:And how would they possibly get the DNA from any village in A.D. 1000 without uncontaminated sources for the people alive at the time?

I'm guessing you would have to either a.) dig up a lot of graves or b.) do thousands of genetic tests on people with reliable genealogies going back that far. It would be really cool, but it seems like a lot of work for what's essentially a parlor game.

I suppose they could discover some interesting previously unknown history this way, though.

A thousand years ago my known ancestors were scattered over most of Western Europe and possibly bits of Eastern Europe and the Middle East. I'd love to have software that showed where they were at any given point in time. It would look like a slo-mo version of maps of air traffic.

Various theories on how far you have to go back before everybody is your ancestor or nobody's ancestor range from about 30-50 generations. Genealogists, geneticists and mathematicians have all had a hand in trying to calculate how long ago our most recent common ancestors lived.

Charlemagne is from 30-45 generations back--often in the same family tree. In mine he is a first cousin 30 times removed, a 36th great grandfather and many others that I can't document because the software freezes up trying to do all the pathways by brute force. Each of the known "gateway" ancestors in my family tree spawn potential lineages so Charlemagne is an ancestor many times over, as are many of the gateways. Even more recently I have multiple lines of descent from key ancestors in New France, New England and New Holland, as well as the British Isles and France.

It's a great feeling when you find one of these gateway ancestors. It basically means FREE FAMILY TREE! You can cut and paste a whole tree on to another branch, saving heaps of time and work.

I have some nice long runs of English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, French and other Kings who are my direct ancestors (grandparents rather than cousins and weird zig-zags).

Dagobert III, King of the Western Franks married the daughter of an eminent Rabbi from Babylon, who was inordinately proud of his own family tree. Through this line we might be able to trace our ancestry back 60 generations. Unlike most of the Royal lineages that include mythological, Biblical or Ancient lineages, this one could have a real basis that might even connect most or all of humanity to King David even further back.

There are very few people in the world who could possibly trace their ancestry so precisely and so far, although some peoples are definitely descended from ancient tribes and DNA evidence can identify some mutations that took place in specific regions thousands of years ago.

I recognize a lot of my ancestors in the chart above but there are quite a few other people there I haven't added to my tree or who are not direct ancestors.

^Interesting genealogy example. If all the people who who supposedly had ancestry in castles, power or royal/noble houses were actually direct relations, they would know it without all the fancy records searching, because they would be the publicly recognized heirs of said castle, power, or royal/noble houses.

There aren't enough castles in all of Ireland for the number of "Irish" Americans I have had tell me that they have castles in their family tree.

InterruptingQuirk:^Interesting genealogy example. If all the people who who supposedly had ancestry in castles, power or royal/noble houses were actually direct relations, they would know it without all the fancy records searching, because they would be the publicly recognized heirs of said castle, power, or royal/noble houses.

There aren't enough castles in all of Ireland for the number of "Irish" Americans I have had tell me that they have castles in their family tree.

This is what I try to explain to people who have the FU I got mine attitude when it comes to the politics tab craziness. What happens in a generation or 2 when your grand or great grand kid isn't "lucky in life"?I got a family tree book from my uncle, one of the more notable guys was a viking named Hubba "the horrible". I haven't read the whole thing, but it is mostly a bunch of folks from Scotland, England and France.My mom says some pretty crazy stuff about her family and I'm not so sure I believe any of it. Some of the highlights: Kings in Portugal & Brazil, Medici family and a Pope, a buried treasure due to some sort of family argument....yea she is crazy.I think it is interesting to know a bit about the life and intrigue of your ancestors. I think it would be cool to be able to trace my ancestry all the way back.

/Not something I'm realistically going to spend time doing because somewhere along the line I got the lazy gene.